City Installs Traffic Lights In Sidewalks For Smartphone Users (washingtonpost.com) 195
tlhIngan writes: It's finally happened -- the smartphone zombies are here. The German city of Augsburg installed traffic lights in the sidewalks so smartphone users don't have to look up. Apparently people are so addicted to their smartphones they can't be bothered to look up at traffic signals, so embedding them in the ground they don't have to. According to the Washington Post report, the city spokeswoman Stephanie Lermen thinks the money used to install the lights is well spent. A recent survey conducted in several European cities including Berlin, found that almost 20 percent of pedestrians were distracted by their smartphones. Of course, younger people are at higher risk as they're willing to risk their safety to look at their Facebook profiles or WhatsApp messages, the survey found. The problem may be even worse in the U.S: A survey by the University of Washington found that 1 in 3 Americans is busy texting or working on a smartphone at dangerous road crossings. City officials say installing the traffic lights is justified: The idea is to install such traffic lights came after a 15-year-old girl was killed by a tram. According to police reports, she was distracted by her smartphone as she crossed the tracks.
Isn't this a self-correcting problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Won't this problem fix itself after a while?
Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was thinking the same thing....what a wonderful opportunity to see natural selection at work, in real time.
I think one of the reasons we're seeing so many inept and stupid people out there (and c'mon, you gotta admit you see them every day)...is that we've been protecting people from themselves WAAAAY too much, and have prevented nature from adding chlorine to the gene pool at appropriate times.
As the previous post alluded to...let nature take care of this situation itself.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That hits on one that's just had me bamboozled lately. I go to a gym during the winter months for the indoor track. And on different days the track goes different directions, with a big sign right as you enter the track which direction is on which days. I believe this is fairly standard. And it never ceases to amaze me how many people go the wrong way. And it's not like, get on the track and go the wrong way, see people going the other way, go back to check and correct, but like yesterday. Girl was li
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds like a 24 Hour Fitness in Austin. It has a track that flips directions on different days, with a fairly obvious sign pointing this out. Oddly enough, there is always that one person that just likes going the wrong way on the track even though they have to dodge everyone else.
Maybe it is practice for the hike and bike trails here.
Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? (Score:5, Informative)
It's because indoor running tracks are generally short (~200m) and you are running on the curve for about 50% of it. If you run alot and always run the same way, you will build up a muscle imbalance.
Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I'd just rather the hoards of idiots that can't even bear to stare way from "their precious" long enough to miss oncoming traffic, get thinned out a bit, so as to allow those of us trying to get somewhere and do something to get on with it, and not have to dodge these mindless zombies.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Brings down unemployment by opening up more jobs and eliminates excess population...
Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
There isn't much financial impact of people getting killed.
There is little immediate impact, but there is a big long term impact, as the lifetime production of that person doesn't happen. Most texters are young adults. Society has spent a lot to raise and educate them, but most of their productive years are in the future. For this reason, I am opposed to intentionally killing texting pedestrians. Killing texting drivers is okay.
Fixing a non-problem (Score:2)
You'd rather have the financial impact of swathes of the population being killed in easily-preventable ways, just so you can feel superior to them?
If they cannot be bothered to look up at a light it means they aren't watching for traffic either. Believe it or not there is more to watch for than just the light. If some idiot wants to wait another cycle because they can't be bothered to look up from their phone then I don't really see the problem. If they are dumb enough to walk out into traffic without actually looking up then they are candidates for a Darwin award. I don't wish anyone to be hurt but if they are because they were idiots I wouldn't
Re: (Score:3)
Our town already employs a guy with a pickup truck and shovel to clear possums and raccoons off the road when they get hit. This is just job security.
Re: (Score:2)
Our town already employs a guy with a pickup truck and shovel to clear possums and raccoons off the road when they get hit.
That is a silly waste of money. Just do what West Virginia has done, and legalize the gathering and consumption of roadkill. Then the roads will be cleaned up at no expense to the public. West Virginians will sometimes fight over dibs on dead racoon. They even have a Roadkill Cookoff [pccocwv.com] with great recipes and plenty of samples to taste. My favorite is the possum chili.
Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
A few changes in the law to minimize driver culpability towards jaywalkers and other pedestrians who don't follow the rules (such as look both ways before they leap) might result in a spike of deaths by inattention, but afterwards, the rest should mend their ways. If not, I won't lose much sleep over these morons being killed off by their busyboxes. Thinning the herd keeps broken adaptation to a minimum. I'd also minimize the impact of broken financial systems that assign an individual's responsibility for stupidity to others.
You have that backward (Score:4, Interesting)
You want to protect people from their own behavior by using force and other people's money, and you claim someone else is trying to feel superior? Welcome to Orwellian speak..
Re: (Score:2)
You'd rather have the financial impact of swathes of the population being killed in easily-preventable ways, just so you can feel superior to them?
Technology moves fast. Infrastructure last decades or longer. In 10 or 20 years time, will we be carrying around a handheld device and looking down at it? Maybe we will be using something else. Audio cues seem like a better option to me. Cheaper and faster to implement, a single location that needs to be maintained, and they would help people with poor eyesight too.
If we really need another visual clue on the ground, painted textured tiles [kirainet.com] are a lot easier to maintain and will still work after a fl
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Survival of the non brain dead.
We have an excess of people already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't this a self-correcting problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, there's nothing more annoying than a two-hour train delay because there are shredded millennials all over the tracks again.
Fortunately, we can look forward to next week's SlashDot story: "New APP warns dumbasses they are currently crossing rails with train approaching." (It could use the phone's microphone to listen for LOUD FUCKING HORNS and DING DING DING DING DING.)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the Headz up App - Saturday Night Live [youtu.be] ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why people put bull bars/grill guards on SUVs that never leave civilization. Mine were motivated at first by Idaho stops. But they are equally effective for pedestrians with cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the surveillance state most of the world has become, consult the traffic cams, if the person hit by a vehicle was paying more attention to their phone, it's all their fault. They pay their own medical bills, and they pay to repair the damage they did to the car (unless there is proof that the car was driving illegally)
Re: (Score:3)
Not only is it not a self-correcting problem; this is already a failed solution.
We have had pedestrian walk/don't walk lights for decades now. They are mostly ignored. Mostly rightfully so since it is often safe to walk when they say not to, but, many pedestrians act as if they have right of way even if the crosswalk is signaled and says don't walk.
So, how is adding a new light, which has the same meaning as the one people are already ignoring, supposed to help in any way? Frankly, I think these traffic con
Re: (Score:2)
It is totally ignoring that people started ignoring the signals before they started staring at devices. Its not a matter of not seeing it...people have decided they don't care and don't need to pay attention. No amount of making the signal bigger, or moving it, is going to change that people don't give a shit about your signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Darwin should be taking care of these morons.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
It's not a genetically-inherited trait, it's an acquired one.
None of the teenagers zombie-walking while looking at their phones have parents who did that when they were young, simply because there were no smartphones back then.
Re: (Score:2)
"Won't this problem fix itself after a while?"
Exactly! Just think of it as evolution in action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Isn't this a self-correcting problem? (Score:4, Funny)
#RetardHipstersThatFeelTheNeedToHashtagEverything
Re: (Score:2)
No. Just no. Yes, ADAC has lots of influence, and cars are indeed popular, but so is cycling. Cycle paths are generally created where cyclists want to ride their bikes, as otherwise the city will have to move them or have to pay for the upkeep of where the cyclists do ride, be it in maintenance or scraping people off the road.
Re: (Score:2)
The "cyclists" who ask for them are the ones who regard a bike as a glorified zimmer frame, and cycling as a form of walking. Cycle paths in the UK are designed assuming no-one rides at more than a brisk walking pace, and they are often marked with Give-Way signs not only at every road junction (and every other public road feature) but even at every private exit. I've seen residential streets with a driveway for every house (30-4
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a city where bikes have the right of way, most crossings have been removed (cars go around the city now, not through) and we have very wide paths for bikes. It makes cycling faster than taking the car for almost everything in town.
I like it a lot. It's both healthier and cheaper. And for the kids who go to school it's safer as well.
The Downward Spiral: (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this subverting the natural course of evolution?
Re: (Score:2)
A question I would ponder is do people who cannot protect their own lives due to phone addiction, do they actually contribute anything of value to society?
Re: (Score:2)
They probably contribute just as much as those people braying for people they don't like to be killed.
Re:The Downward Spiral: (Score:4, Insightful)
If you protect stupid people from themselves, you hurt everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. Likely ALL it does is increase costs and create a few extra jobs installing them.
It is unlikely to solve any problem, and is most likely to be ignored, just like the existing signal lights for pedestrians are.
Re: (Score:2)
i have had a picture in my head, for many years, ever since i first saw two teenagers walking one behind the other (separated by a distance of only 18 inches), *both* of them thumbs-down and heads-down on their phones. the picture is of DEvolution - it's an addition of two more pictures to the classic darwin evolution of ape to human... and it starts with a picture of an average naked human holding a smartphone, bent over, and ends with a cyborg on all fours again, antennae bristling out of its head.
we're
Re:The Downward Spiral: (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't pretty much all medicine and human progress in general subverting the course of evolution?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Even if the single person would prove itself inept at the task at hand (crossing a road), it might have other interesting abilities that will help other people to overcome other obstacles
Re: (Score:2)
"Younger people are most likely to risk their safety for a quick look at their Facebook profiles or WhatsApp messages, the survey found."
Good, get 'em out of the gene pool in time!
Re: (Score:3)
"...we will end up being Bonobos who can write PHP code"
No, bonobos code in Visual Basic.
Re: (Score:2)
#zombielivesmatter (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm now waiting for the next horror movie where phone zombies walk out in front of people and get gooified, and come back as zombies to munch on the people that killed them.
Re: (Score:2)
Use an app instead (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Use an app instead (Score:5, Insightful)
When exceptions are made that do not penalize risky behavior, it encourages more risky behavior, perhaps in an environment without any protection.
Desensization/Conditioning, or deferred authority? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Which light? The phone does not know which of the two road crossings you are standing next to you want to use.
2) And why in the world would a person who does bother to look before they cross go out of their way to install and use an app to do the same? If they cared, they would not be crossing the street in this way to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, why rely on visual cues outside of the phone at all? If they're looking at the phone and have location enabled, on-screen notifications could tell them when the light is green. This avoids them having to notice the periphery at all, which is less likely if they're into a particularly intense sexting session or game of Farmville.
Maybe because network / cpu delay would = a dead user ?
I sure as hell wouldn't take the risk of writing / publishing / backing such an app.
Stupid idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Let Darwinism take its course.
Re: (Score:2)
Let Darwinism take its course.
So many people making comments like this. So many sociopaths.
Even if the kernel of your thought was valid, you're missing what is obvious to others. What about the "smart" person driving the car that hits the inattentive pedestrian? Their guilt and sorrow is trivial enough to you that taking steps to prevent it isn't worth a thought? What about the parents of the inattentive pedestrian, who tried to instill sensibility in their child but... rebellious teens still think they know everything? What abou
Re: (Score:2)
This is Slashdot. You just went over most posters' heads. At best, you'll just get blank stares.
Wrong solution (Score:2)
----This message brought to you by Cisco(tm)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let nature work. (Score:2)
The fact that sidewalk streetlights have been implemented is a sure sign that not enough Darwin awards are being granted in the world today.
Given the time and a proper amount of texting drivers, this problem will eliminate itself.
Good for them (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice to see a government that cares about keeping people safe rather than just taking their money and scolding them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sure not helping the gene pool. To think that there were so many helping civilization and now some government has gone and messed that up.
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's the government job to protect every person from every single possible calamity which may befall that person rather than encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves.
Essentially, you're admitting people are too stupid to take care of themselves so Big Brother has to do so.
Are these the kind of people we want to perpetuate our species? Ones who can't think or act for themselves?
Re:Good for them (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not just about saving the life of the person who is not paying attention. If they walk out into traffic other people may be hurt such as the driver of the car or passengers or the car may hit other people if the driver swerves. Then there is the psychological trauma, especially for the driver of the vehicle. But it's also for other passengers, the bystanders, and the emergency response crews. Plus you have the impact on the family and friends. Not just for the person who wasn't looking but for anyone else who was hurt physically and/or mentally. And finally you have any damage that needs to be repaired. It's not as important as the rest but it still needs to be taken into account.
So no, it's not just the government trying to protect a single person from every possible calamity. In this case it's the government trying to protect a whole bunch of us from someone being an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't letting people see the result of being more enamored with ones cell phone than their surroundings teach a larger group of people a valuable lesson? "This is what happens when you don't pay attention."
In nature, when one animal encounters a bad situation, and it survives, it tells its friends and neighbors. Those in turn don't do what the first animal did. It's called learning. Those that
Re: (Score:2)
Blah, blah, blah. I make stupid decisions but not ones which endanger others.
Why should I have compassion for people who refuse to listen to or use common sense? Pick anything you like: alcohol, drug use, smoking, texting while driving, talking on the phone while driving, taking selfies while driving, driving with your wrist slung over the top of the steering wheel, the list goes. In every single case there are mountains of science to back up the dangers of all those activities yet millions of people ever
Re: (Score:3)
You hit the nail on the head with that last word. Idiot. They are everywhere. The government can no more protect us from them than they can protect idiots from themselves. Make something idiot proof, evolution produces a greater idiot.
But at what expense. The result of idiot proofing the world has very real economic impacts not just because the government is spending money but also due to the regulations they introduce and the effort and lost time caused by retrospective compliance.
The only thing they achie
Re: (Score:3)
Are these the kind of people we want to perpetuate our species? Ones who can't think or act for themselves?
Thousands of years of religion haven't extinguished humanity, so don't be too concerned about cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's the government job to protect every person from every single possible calamity which may befall that person rather than encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves.
Amen. This line of thinking of "but if it saves JUST ONE LIFE, it's all worth it!" is dangerous, expensive, and sadly growing more pervasive. Government trying to protect every person from every possible calamity has led to the USA PATRIOT act, the mass surveillance apparatus, 3 hour lines to get on an airplane, etc.
People are going to die. It sucks, but we can't save everyone all the time.
Ha (Score:2, Insightful)
If a girl can't notice a train, they are not going to notice lights on the ground. If they can't even notice they are walking into a street... I bet they think all drivers will stop to let them pass.
Ok, lets forget highway improvements, lets put all that money into putting lights into the sidewalks!
Size 11 1/2 Hush Puppy (Score:2)
If you're walking down a busy street gazing down at your cell phone, I'd like to install my shoe up your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello Mr. Forman. [wikia.com]
Boom to the Burglary Business!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
I grew up in a small framing community outside of Chicago and then went to college in Chicago. In one of my first few weeks there, a new friend who was from the city told me to stop looking down at the sidewalk. I asked why and he told me, that is how you get yourself mugged.
We talked about it and I realized, being from a land of no sidewalks, I always scan the ground to make sure of my footing so I don't trip on uneven ground. In the city, sidewalks are much more level and predictable so people don't have to look down. Also pickpockets and muggers look for easy targets that can't identify them. My friend told me, he was always taught, look up and look at the people around you. If you make eye contact with a mugger, there is a chance you will be able to ID him so they look for another target.
I am thinking, all these peoples looking down at their phone are an excellent target for being pick pocketed! I may have to change professions!
Horrible Idea, Horrible Suggestions (Score:5, Interesting)
While it is obvious that this "solution" solves nothing and protects no one, the solutions put forward here are equally useless. No one who does not look up when crossing the road will install an app to make street crossings easier (and that is ignoring the technical hurdle of figuring out which road the user is crossing at the intersection, which seems like an unsolvable problem to me). And if they are engrossed in their phone, they are equally as likely to miss any indicators, on the ground, in the sky, or anywhere in-between.
If you want to protect people from themselves, you need some sort of barrier or arm that physically blocks forward movement. Nothing else will register to someone who will miss a train barrelling towards them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to protect people from themselves, you need some sort of barrier or arm that physically blocks forward movement. Nothing else will register to someone who will miss a train barrelling towards them.
This is exactly what my city is doing - installing miniature crossing gates that block the sidewalks at grade crossings when a train is coming. Because pedestrians obviously can't see the traffic gates come down or hear the loud bells or see the flashing red lights.
Re: (Score:2)
I once saved a texting woman from being run-over by a train at a railroad crossing.
She walked right out on the tracks despite blinking lights and a very loud audible signal. She stopped first after a boom stopped her path -- the boom on the opposite side: She was standing right on the railroad track!
I had to enter the tracks and physically drag her out of there. She protested at first, but I got her to safety. She said "thanks" but at no time did her eyes even leave her frikkin' phone!
So, no, I don't thin
Need something for stop lines (Score:3)
How about something that smacks drivers in the head when they pull a FULL car length PAST the stop line before even thinking about stopping knowing full well that if approaching cars are just barely far enough away they'd blow right through the stop sign? News flash, people, you're not that important and neither is whatever you're racing to.
Situational Awareness (Score:5, Insightful)
The loss of situational awareness makes people more susceptible to bad outcomes because the warning cues don't get through. Hence walking into traffic while looking at a screen. Obviously reading and walking can have the same result, but before the advent of current smartphones there were far fewer people who acted that irresponsibly. Also it was not social acceptable because most people realized the potential hazard. Now that smartphones are ubiquitous social norms have changed and people just don't care about what's going on around them.
A more direct way to say it is that people now act very stupidly in public. They inhabit a personal bubble and blindly assume that reality will never intrude. There will never be enough padding in the world to protect them from a lack of attention. To quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does".
Re: (Score:3)
Let me get this straight.. (Score:3)
So using a cell phone while driving and causing an accident is clearly the driver's fault, but using a cell phone while walking and causing an accident is the city's fault?
Double standard, much? [theoatmeal.com]
Another example of government... (Score:2)
This is another example of governments rewarding/subsidizing bad behavior. It needs to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
I like it !! (Score:2)
For all those who say "let stupid solve itself" - I for one actually like this idea. Not for smartphone users. But for kids and other adults - large trucks and trains can block the crosswalk light. My son is learning to cross the road himself and currently knows to Stop at the Yellow mat on the sidewalk (we have these big yellow rubber mats installed in the sidewalk). The road itself has either White painted stripes or inlaid faux Brick crossings.
So having a row of Red Lights on the ground like a littl
Never mind cost and security issues (Score:2)
Better idea... (Score:2)
Change the laws so that drivers are not liable if they hit a pedestrian when it's the drivers lawful right of way.
Do these even work? (Score:2)
Seeing-Eye Dogs (Score:2)
These light strips should also be visible to seeing-eye dogs, who could be trained to stop their owner when turned on. Since dogs are colorblind, that's assuming they just turn off and on, not red and green.
Well, it does have its uses (Score:2)
Although I'd normally snark this one to death, having flashing LEDs at a crossing for pedestrian control *as well as* for vehicle control isn't a bad idea, really. We have a couple of those here in San Diego on notoriously unsafe crossings, or areas where cars have a tendency to fail to notice the normal crosswalk signaling but they don't want to put a full traffic light in.
Those with failing eyesight or using guide-dogs might also benefit from this.
It's a horrible thing to *have* to put in, but as probably
Tickets (Score:3)
Shouldn't they be handing out tickets and fines to pedestrians that are using public streets while distracted?
Re: (Score:2)
And so you link to the daily mail, please go kill yourself.
Actually the Daily Mail gives us detail about many US stories that are for various reasons suppressed domestically. A recent example is that high school girl killed by bullies in the girls' bathroom in Wilmington DE:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
The linked story includes a number of details, including pictures taken at the scene, that we have not seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, not the Daily Mail [thejournal.ie]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, use Near Field Communication (NFC) to shut down their phone when they approach the curb.
It could then be expanded to other places, say every movie theatre seat, and elevators.
Re: (Score:2)
The pedestrians are hit by trams and cars, both of which have human occupants. These lights are there to help them. Calm down.
Re: (Score:2)
At least for airplanes and airports, this is genuinely useful. Runway incursions are a huge safety risk and while you're supposed to contact ATC when entering a runway, as well as looking, it can be difficult since a runway can be a couple of miles long or lo
Re: (Score:2)
These stupid people won't pay attention to the lights in the sidewalk either, so they will get weeded out anyway. You can't help stupid; one of the failings of our society is trying to divorce stupid people from the consequences of their stupid actions.
Re: (Score:3)
maybe their S.O. starts a heated argument via g-chat.
That's when my phone battery dies.